Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, can I ask you to reflect further on this matter, because on the examples you have used today and on the basis of the materials provided to me by chamber research, you are right to say that a practice, perhaps undesirable, has grown up in the House where on procedural matters the suspension and the object of the suspension are dealt with as the same thing—for example, delaying question time to 2.15 today. But chamber research has not been able to identify any time in the past that a non-procedural matter as serious as a condemnation of a member was dealt with in this way. It flies in the face of the protections for members in the standing orders that they need to have any allegations against them dealt with by way of substantive motion. One cannot assume the standing orders would read that way if you could use a procedural device like a suspension.

While I appreciate, Mr Speaker, you relying on precedents from the opposition—I think that is very gracious of you—one of the inconvenient things in this parliament is that opposition motions do not get up. I can assure you that, if one of our suspensions was ever successful, we would then proceed to the substantive motion that the suspension would then permit. Let me assure you, Mr Speaker, we would never leave that unattended to, should we win a suspension.

In view of the scheme of the standing orders and the information from chamber research, I really do think that this is a substantial matter that violates the long-term rights of members in this parliament. The scheme that you are contemplating means that any member at a change of business can jump up at any time and move a suspension of standing orders condemning another member and that the government, with the numbers, will then proceed with that debate and somehow the substance and the procedure have become conflated as one. That really is a very marked departure from all past practice and, I would say, a very substantial violation of our rights as members to defend ourselves through a substantive motion, through a long and unrestrained debate.

See this speech in context